From owner-freebsd-net Sun Apr 1 16: 8: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129AB37B71B for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:07:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@pilosoft.com) Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost) by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07683; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:12:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov To: Brett Glass Cc: Wes Peters , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Brett Glass wrote: > At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? > > I don't see why it should be that inefficient. In fact, I've been > thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit > faster. It IS terribly inefficient. Header compression doesn't do much for you. Ethernet over ATM overhead sucks enough, no need to add PPP headers. > I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network > to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that > does that. The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do > not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? I'm hacking on a 'magic box' solution, which will essentially listen for ARP packets from box A to box B, reply with its own MAC, and then forward ethernet packets back onto the same wire, rewriting the MACs appropriately. -alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message